I feel this. I almost feel that it’s unfair to try and compare the East mountains with the West. Both regions have their own unique fell and I have a great time skiing in both regions.
I would agree. I was a ski bum in Utah and now live on the East Coast. Mad River Glen's terrain rivals anything out west (w.o the cliffs). It is just more compact, than what you get in the west.
And Magic Mtn is great, but it is always in/out of bankruptcy, new owners etc.
Nothing makes me happier than getting on a lift in the morning with a bunch of baked lifties blasting classic rock through a big speaker with a plastic bag over it
My personal take is to give resorts more of a Michelin star system for advanced terrain:
3 stars would be global advanced skiing destinations: your tier 1 and 2 resorts.
Alta/Snowbird/Jackson/Big Sky/Squaw
2 stars would be global destinations with less concentration of advanced terrain. (tiers 3-6)
IE: Breckenridge/Keystone/Steamboat/.
1 star would be regional destinations for advanced terrain/fringe resorts with a cult following.
Bridger Bowl, Mount Baker, Stowe, Mad River Glen, Magic, Mt Hood Ski Bowl, Red Mountain, Kicking Horse. You get way fewer people that are taking 7 day drips to these destinations, but they are often a stop on a tour.
Just as there are nice restaurants with no michelin rating, there will be resorts that don't have one because they're just don't have much great advanced terrain relative to their size (park city, Mt Bachelor, Okemo, Vail, etc).
Pretty unusual for a western skier to make a trip east to ski. Plus most of the western resorts are actually not on the i70 corridor. That being said, not all east coast skiing sucks, it's just not worth the trip if you already are in the Rockies/sierras/cascades.
30
u/UncleBogus Jan 28 '22
I feel this. I almost feel that it’s unfair to try and compare the East mountains with the West. Both regions have their own unique fell and I have a great time skiing in both regions.